rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/27/85)
What I find truly amazing in Dan Boskovich's reply to Paul Zimmerman is that he is at least twice as guilty of everything he accuses Paul of. >>You say you ``know'' I could not possibly really believe my ``theory.'' >>I believe it because the evidence makes it clear that it is true. Why do you >>believe your ``theory?'' > The evidence may be consistence with your belief. It is also consistent > with mine. However, your theory has a basic underlying flaw. You base > your beliefs on various incidents described in the Bible. But then you > add your own interpratation of the events. You claim that the facts are > are mixed with lies of the Damager-God. You have therefore, set yourself > up as THE prophet who has the ability to distinguish between truth and > error in the Bible. How did you come to this revelation. If there are lies > in the Bible than nothing in it is reliable. Your theory crumbles for > lack of evidence that this Damager-God even exists. The only evidence > you have left is the evil and inhumanity of man throughout the centuries > of recorded history. But, this is no evidence for the existance of God, > just the evil of man. Yet from this lack of evidence that God even exists, Dan has concluded that he does. He says "if there are lies in the Bible then nothing in it is reliable". But apparently that possibility is beyond consideration: God "obviously" exists, he is "obviously" good, the Bible "obviously" doesn't contain lies. > If you accept the Bible as evidence than it is not subject to whimsical > changes in the facts and God's charactor. If, indeed. Paul makes just as viable as claim as yours, Dan: that you cannot accept the Bible as evidence because (in his words) it is akin to a history of Watergate as written by Richard Nixon. (Good analogy, Paul!) Can you show how your assumptions are quantitatively and qualitatively any different from Paul's? > The claims of the Bible have been substantiated in my life. And Paul's claims have been substantiated in his life (apparently). So? > Another flaw in your theory is your belief that one day this God will be > beaten. You said that He is not as powerful as I might believe. Where > do you get that information from? The Bible? Who do you think could ever > beat a God who can do the things you yourself say He has done? He can > destroy cities and people at His mere command. He can destroy the world > in a flood. He is planning to destroy all mankind at Armegeddon. Knowing this, knowing that what Paul has said about god is dead on true, why do you doubt what he has to say? > Yet, you > think He can be beaten. This is a frightening position, Paul. Because it > is Satan himself and his anti-christ who thinks he can and tries to beat > God. Revelations 19 says that the armies of the earth led by Satan will > turn to fight against Christ at His return. I still don't understand. As I understand Paul's position, "God" and "Satan" represent different names for the same entity. It seems to me that Paul's position makes at least an equal number of assumptions as yours does. How can you claim some sort of superiority over Paul's beliefs? > Suffering is inevitable. It came upon us when Adam disobeyed God. Death > was introduced into the world at that time. Adam was warned. He didn't > listen. But God, rich in mercy, immediately spoke of the hope to come > in the one who would bruise the serpants head, the seed of the woman. Again, how is Paul's story any more presumptive than yours? >> As I have said to others, don't waste prayers to the pig filth >>Damager-God, on me or on you. There is no love from Him waiting for >>anybody. Did He really ``become human flesh,'' or did He just select a man >>as His son and dupe him into suffering for Him, in His place, then duping >>the rest of mankind into believing it all? Why do you persistently believe >>in God's lies when you have already said that you know better, that you have >>questioned the goodness of God? Why the heck did you stop? > Here again you have created your own belief about Christ. Where have you > recieved your information? "Select a man and dupe him into suffering..." > Wow! Your theory is based on assumptions just like this. And how is your theory any different? > You say that > God is a liar, therefore what He says in the Bible must be lies. Than you > go about telling us what are lies and what are not. Nothing but assumptions! Very true. Your whole article, both the extracts from Paul and your own words, are, indeed, nothing but assumptions. > Have you ever considered the possibility that you are evil, Paul? I mean > in the biblical sense that all mankind is evil. Have you ever examined > your heart objectively? Do you find yourself pure? Of course, you can > always blame the Evil-Damager God for your evil because He created you, > right? Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been duped, Dan? I mean in the sense that people were duped by Nixon after Watergate. Of course, you can always believe that your god as you depict him really exists. Because you want him to, right? > I did think through the things you said about God. I considered them > carefully. I didn't just write them off. I can see how one would > blame God for evil things that happen to them and around them. But I > also believe that this is because we are short-sighted and have corrupt > vision. Whose corrupt vision? Paul's? Or ... I am sincerely interested in hearing how you reconcile your own very large set of assumptions with deriding Paul's beliefs because he comes from assumptions. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr